Show a Republican This to Expose Their Hypocrisy About Deficit Spending

There’s a lot of rhetoric that comes from conservatives when it comes to President Obama.

I’ve never seen a man be accused of being so many different things, often accusations which completely contradict facts, logic and reality.

One of the accusations I always find most amusing is this “disgust” conservatives have with the spending under President Obama. My favorite right-wing catchphrase is “Obama has spent more than every other President in United States history—combined.”

Which is by far one of the dumbest things I’ve heard considering that basic knowledge of math easily disproves it. The national debt when he took office was $10.6 trillion, and it currently sits at $16.4 trillion. That’s an increase of $5.8 trillion, or as I like to call it—not greater than the $10.7 trillion he would have needed to spend to more than double our debt and “spend more than the combined totals of all other Presidents in United States history.”

Now don’t get me wrong, $5.8 trillion is a lot of money. But it’s also a number that has more than just what you see on face value, especially when you consider these people voted for George W. Bush—twice.

See, much of the money that Obama gets blamed for in 2009 was actually passed in 2008—under Bush. So if you take out the $1.4 trillion deficit we ran in 2009, which carried the budget passed in 2008 under President Bush, that puts Obama’s additions to our national debt at $4.4 trillion.

And contrary to what Republicans want you to believe, deficits are shrinking. In fact, our deficit for 2013 is projected to be almost $500 billion lower than it was in 2009. That’s nearly a 33% reduction in deficit spending in 4 years—under President Obama. But I’m sure you won’t hear that on Fox News.

But what I like to look at is the hypocrisy of the “fiscal conservative” when it comes to spending. They love to slam President Obama for his “out of control spending,” but they fail to mention that he took over a sinking economy and a national debt that had doubled the previous 8 years. We had to spend a lot of money to avoid sinking into another Great Depression with an economy that was on the brink of collapse—again, thanks to 8 years of Bush.

Let’s take a look at the list of yearly deficits under Bush:

2002: -157,758 Billion (First year with a budget passed by Bush)

2003: -377,585 Billion

2004: -412,727 Billion

2005: -318,346 Billion

2006: -247,181 Billion

2007: -160,701 Billion

2008: -458,552 Billion

2009: -1,412,688 Trillion (Last year with a budget passed by Bush)

And for fun, let’s also look at the 4 years prior to Bush, under President Clinton:

1998: 69,270 Billion

1999: 125,610 Billion

2000: 236,241 Billion

2001: 128,236 Billion

Notice what those numbers are lacking? It’s the negative sign before the number. That’s because our nation had a budget surplus, not a deficit. It took one budget passed under President Bush before he destroyed our surplus and sent us back into deficit spending.

And don’t give me the line, “Well Clinton had a Republican Congress.” Bush had a mostly Republican-controlled Congress for his entire 8 years as President. If the Republicans in Congress were responsible for our budget surpluses, they would have grown under Bush, not turned into giant deficits.

So it’s just laughable that these people act as if they suddenly care about spending, when the guy they voted for twice turned a budget surplus into giant deficits, doubled our national debt and destroyed our economy.

And this doesn’t even cover the Reagan years where we quadrupled our national debt and George H. Bush where we also added almost another $2 trillion to our national debt in just 4 years.

So the next time a conservative wants to harp about “out of control government spending,” simply ask them two questions:

Did you vote for George W. Bush?

Can you name a Republican President you voted for who actually balanced our budget?

Their answer to #1 will most likely be yes. Their answer to #2 can only be answered by those old enough to have voted for Dwight D. Eisenhower, considering he’s the last Republican President to actually balance our budget.

“Fiscally conservative Republicans”—a phrase that’s more like a punchline to a bad joke than anything close to a political reality.

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on both Twitter and Facebook. Have feedback, inquiries, criticism or compliments? You can email him as well.

I don’t know a single self-proclaimed “conservative” that didn’t vote for Bush both times. Whether they ‘care’ for him, or not – they put him in place & viciously fought for everything the fool wanted. Now they all pretend that Obama did it.

The bottom line is that Republicans have no problem with blatant hypocrisy. They have no shame when it comes to what they say. They have one goal, returning to power, and they will do and say ANYTHING to get there,

As a registered independent,I will like to see a third party emerge,but since both parties have fixed the system to their benefit,its this type of bold face story telling that makes me vote Democrats into office.Republicans or Conservatives,whatever they want to call themselves need to come up with a new strategy.Barack Obama has closed the books on all the issues they use to win elections,be it National Security,Taxes or whatever.

cboo

third party just takes away from democrats and pushes in another tpub to finish ruining this country

SyntheticPhylum

I wish there was a viable 3rd party, as well. But at least the Dems have SOME interest in helping the lower & middle classes to survive & succeed!

Grumpmaster_Zz

You are confusing total government spending with the deficit. Two different things. Govt spending has increased to 38% of GDP, and is around $3.7 trillion for FY2012. Revenues are only $2.5 T, and the difference must be made up by incurring debt. Obama is on track to spend almost $30 Trillion by the end of his Presidency, which is a little bit less than Clinton and Bush 43 combined – (although definitely not as much as all Presidents throughout history.)

Glad you brought up revenue. The bush tax cuts added trillions to the deficit. During the Great Bush Crash we were hemmoraghing 750,000 jobs a month (Lost Revenue). The Great Republican Recession of high unemployment also delivered Lost Revenue. As our economic engine picks up steam and more people are working that ads to the revenue. Too bad the do nothing congress doesn’t want to help to the jobs/revenue problem. Goper-nomics are a failure.

Salgofnir

So it’s all Bush’s fault. I guess the Dem controlled Senate and House had nothing what so ever to do with it. The Senate that had Hillary, Obama, Biden and Clinton as members. Can you tell me a single thing that any of the 3 did while in the Senate to deal with the housing crash? I can tell you that before Obama was in the Senate he would sue banks for no making to loans to high risk inner city people. So please enlighten me as to how Bush caused the crash. A quick fact for you. in 2007 revenue has at an all time high. Even with tax cuts, bush had more revenue than Clinton.

Tony

I suggest you look into what “control” they had on an actual government website, because it lasted a hell of a lot less time than Republicans seem to think and even that was plagued by filibusters.

This concept that Democrats controlled both arms for any notable measure of time is flat out WRONG. Go look at the damn rolls already.

Salgofnir

Sorry for not checking for a reply earlier. I have a life. The Dems took control of the Senate in 2004 and the House in 2006. So yes, I did look at the “damn rolls” already. But you did not answer the question. You failed to enlighten me as to how Bush caused the crash and the Dems that had controlled the Senate for 4 years and the House for 2 had nothing to do with it.

tcaruso01

You need to learn the difference between control and a super-majority!! Besides the Tax Cuts and the two unpaid for wars began before the democratic majority came about!!

cobra614

Bush and the Paulson together caused the crash. With the derivatives market playing Russian roulette with selling mortgages in bundles to the point that homeowners could not get a straight answer as to who was the underwriter of the mortgage. A lot of homeowners would still be in their homes if they knew they could challenge foreclosures because the original holder of the mortgage was no longer known. Allowing the banks to initiate unscrupulous lending practices and let us not forget that the bailout was under Bush and was in place when Obama took office. At this present time we are dealing with holding those responsible for crashing this economy if you have been paying attention.

Joe Downey

2007 to 2009 President Bush ruled by Veto FACT

Joe Downey

Obama and the Democrats in Sept of 2008 should have taken a play out of the GOP Playbook They should have done NOTHING let the Economy Crash and it be called the Bush Depression. BUT NNOOOOO Obama had to act like an adult

cobra614

Well…let me clue you on some more numbers that you failed to factor in..

Dude, you rip the Repubs for not knowing basic math, then you “disprove” their claims by faulty logic. A growing or shrinking deficit is NOT necessarily indicative of increased or decreased spending. It only measures the cumulative difference in expenditures and income. Spending may go up, but if the revenues keep pace the deficit will not change. Conversely, a cut in spending can (and often does, in a struggling economy) lead to an increase in the deficit through lower tax revenues. You simply cannot measure spending by looking at yearly changes in the deficit. Though the two can be related, ignoring income leaves your hypothesis sorely lacking.
I agree with your premise, but you need to do the work and compare apples to apples. Unless you are auditioning for a job with Repubs or a Fox News role.

Donna_DHKBB

Angus, the bottom line for Obama’s annual budgets reflects a shrinking deficit. It does not make a specific statement about spending or revenues. It does say he is spending less of whatever he is taking in. Do not ignore the fact that this administration IS spending less each year.

2009 budget bush passed included the 787 billion stimulus package and i believe the actual quote would be that if he keeps his existing path he would add as much debt as all the presidents in history combined ….. just saying

This post has a convenient list of the deficits per year under Clinton and George W. Bush, but where’s the list for Barack Obama?

Salgofnir

I am tired of people saying there was a budget surplus under Clinton. THERE WAS NO SURPLUS. It was an accounting trick. National debt is made up of public debt and intra-governmental holdings. The public debt went down while the intra-governmental holdings went up.

tcaruso01

It was a projected surplus!!

Donna_DHKBB

You’re confusing debt with budget deficit/surplus. Debt is cumulative. Deficits or Surpluses refer only to the budget (for each year).

SyntheticPhylum

And there WAS a SEVEN TRILLION DOLLAR surplus in the Social Security fund ALONE. That was GONE before Dubya’s first year in office was over!

This is so true, Obama was being blackmailed into signing those tax cuts in order to ensure that Unemployment Benefits would be paid. Republicans were holding hostage those funds until he agreed to the cuts but letting them expire this time is another reason why the debt and deficit is going down…

Jerry

You make a good argument, but one that is slightly better is to compare the national debt over time/president adjusted for inflation. Bush could hide the “deficit” spending, but not the debt

Charles Vincent

The national debt when he took office was $10.6 trillion, and it currently sits at $16.4 trillion. That’s an increase of $5.8 trillion, or as I like to call it—not greater than the $10.7 trillion.
This is deficit not debt.
George bush inherited ~3.3 trillion in debt from bill Clinton’s presidency. George bush added another ~3.3 trillion bringing the debt to ~6.6 trillion
The total debt at the end of 2012 is ~11.3 trillion which means Obama increased out debt by ~4.7 trillion dollars in 4 years. Compared to ~1.6 trillion per four year term during bush.
This ~4.7 trillion is definitely more than every president up to Clinton. And it’s more than bush spent in eight years by ~1.4 trillion and ~3.1 trillion mor than bush spent during either of his 2 four year terms.

cobra614

Did you factor in the surplus that was in place when Bush took office? You forgot that Bush spent his way through his 8 years like a drunken sailor and remember Cheney said deficits do not matter…remember that?

Charles Vincent

You’re confusing debt with deficit they are two separate things. I am talking about debt. I included national debt when bush took office as a reference point so I could better illustrate how much obamas debt dwarfed not just bush’s debt but all other president up to Clinton. Remember when the democrats created America’s worst depression because of their poor fiscal policy, it lasted ~12 years. And I am not referencing the depression of the 1930’s.

Joe Downey

The debt left by Carter to Reagan was 980 Billion 8 yrs later Reagan gave a 3.7 Trillion Debt to Bush the Elected, Bush the Elected gave Clinton aDebt of 5.4 Trillion Clinton then transferred a Debt to Bush the appointed a total of 5.8 Trillion. In 2009 the transferred amount was 10.7 Trillion FACTS

Charles Vincent

The new CBO numbers and their analysis of the Obama budget through 2023 show a better long term set of numbers and they also include two different models one shows our total debt at 109 trillion in 2016, this number includes unfunded liabilities like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but does not include the new unfunded liabilities that the ACA adds to the mandatory spending in the form of block grants to the states to fund those un able to pay for the now mandatory health care coverage. Also my posts on this topic are two months old and I have since started using the CBO’s newest numbers.

rwy

Nothing new here. Nixon was able to open relations with China because he was an avid antiCommunist. Can you imagine if it had been a Democrat who dared try how the Republicans would raise the cry of Dupe! Dupe!? “The party of fiscal responsibility” can get away with huge deficits because they are “fiscally responsible”, so it must be OK.

K_Ann

It’s unfortunate that people don’t understand the difference between debt, deficit and spending. In simple terms the deficit is the difference between revenue and spending and debt is the money borrowed to cover the deficit. You could double or triple the spending and as long as you doubled or tripled taxes the deficit would not change; you could also maintain spending and raise taxes and have a lower deficit.

And the ever disingenuous Mr. Clifton carries on with two more fallacious claims; first he uses debt as a measure of spending – which is – well, just wrong – the budget or financial statement for each of those years would be the measure of spending. See above, the deficit is not a measure of spending. And then he interprets the claim of all presidents before him and meaning all presidents combined rather than each individually. What he should have done was gasp at the fact that in one term Obama increased the debt, that took several prior presidents to accumulate, by approximately 50%.

Don’t swallow everything this guy says without thinking on your own.

DougH2

No other President assumed a budget deficit over $1 trillion dollars. And, since the great depression, no other President assumed an economy that was losing 800,000 jobs per month. That’s on top of 2 of the big 3 automakers being close to liquidation, a DOW that had lost 3,500 points in the previous 6 months and two wars (first started with tax cuts rather than tax increases in the history of America).

To attribute the additional debt to President Obama and the Democrats is blatant dishonesty.